
Glass. 



£i 



Book 






SPEECH 

OP 
ON THE 

RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY 

IN MISSOURI. 

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 
UNITED STATES, JANUARY 28, 1820. 



Mr. SmVth, of Virginia, addressed the chair. 
He said, that the constitutionality of the measure pro- 
posed, was the subject which he intended first to con- 
sider. The constitution (said he) provides that " new 
states may be admitted by Congress into this Union." 
I£ then, a new state is admitted into "this Union," must 
it not be on terim of equality ? Can the old states, the 
first parties to this Union, bind other states farther than 
they themselves are bound? Can they bind the new 
states not to admit slavery, and preserve to themselves 
the right to admit slavery ? bhall the old states pre- 
serve rights of which the new states shall be deprived ? 
Can this government demand of the new states a right 
to exercise powers over them, that it cannot exercise 
over the old states ? If so, you may demand of the new 
states power to legislate over them as you legislate over 
the District of Columbia. Can you stipulate with a new 
state that she shall have but one Senator; that her re. 
presentation in this House shall be apportioned by the 
number of her free inhabitants only ; that she shall not 
appoint her full number of electors of the President ; or 
that she shall not have a republican form of government? 
You cannot : for the constitution fixes the rights of eve- 
1 






vy state in these respects. Can you stipulate for the Te- 
g-illation of the press ; for the establishment of religion ; 
or for a power to appoint militia officers ? You cannot; 
for in these respects, also, the rights of the states are 
declared by the constitution. And if you cannot stipu- 
late for the exercise of a power prohibited, you cannot 
stipulate for the exercise of a power withheld. 

Will you not admit that you cannot stipulate for a pow- 
er to appoint militia officers in a new state ? You will : 
because that power is specially, and in direct terms, re- 
served to the states. All powers not granted, are reserved, 
in general terms. If the power is reserved, is it not the 
same, whether it be reserved in direct or in general 
terms ? It is the same. A power reserved to the states 
or to the people, either in direct or in general terms, 
you cannot exercise, without committing an act of usur« 
pation. 

The case supposed, of stipulating for power to appoint 
militia officers, illustrates the danger which might arise 
to freedom, by forming a new class of states, over which 
this government should possess powers different from 
those which it exercises over the old states. A conso- 
lidated government might be established over such new 
states. At the time of the revolution it was a cause of 
complaint against the British King, that, by acquiring Ca- 
nada, and establishing a despotic government therein, 
he endangered the liberty of the American Colonies. — 
The people would never have adopted the constitution 
had they supposed that Congress was to exercise over 
the new states powers different from those granted by 
the constitution. 

The legislative power of every state is originally co- 
extensive. Each state, by the constitution, commits an 
equal portion of its legislative power to Congress ; and 
all the residue is reserved to thestates,(unless prohibited 
to them,) or to the people. The only powers of this gov- 
ernment are given by the constitution. The powers 
granted are to be exercised over every state ; and the 
powers reserved, are retained by every state. In Penn- 
sylvania and in Virginia, the power to legislate respect- 
ing slavery is in the legislature. In Ohio and Indiana 
that power is in the people, who have denied it to their 
legislatures. No power has been delegated to Con- 
gress to legislate on that subject. The constitution pro- 
vides that, «« The powers not delegated to the United 
States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the 
people." The powers not delegated, being reserved to 



the states respectively, are reserved to each of the states, 
whether new or old. 

Has the power to legislate over slavery been delegat- 
ed to the United States- ? It has not. Has it been pro- 
hibited to the states ? It has not. Then it is reserved to 
the states respectively, or to the people. Consequent- 
ly, it is reserved to the state of Missouri, or to the peo- 
ple of that state. And any attempt, by Congress, to de- 
prive them of this reserved power, will be unjust, tyran- 
ical, unconstitutional, and void. 

The only condition that may, constitutionally, be an- 
nexed to the admission of a new state into this Union, is, 
that its constitution shall be republican. This the con- 
stitution authorises us to require, and it is the only con- 
dition that is necessary. "We possess power to make all 
needful regulations respecting the territorial property of 
the United States. Our acts, in pursuance of the consti- 
tution, are paramount to the laws of any state. When 
we pursue our constitutional authority, we need no aid 
from stipulations ; and when we exceed it, our acts are 
acts of usurpation, and void. 

It has been questioned by some, whether a constitu- 
tion can be said to be republican, which does not ex- 
clude slavery. But we must understand the phrase, "re- 
publican form of government," as the people understood 
it when they adopted the constitution. We are bound 
by the construction which was put upon the constitution 
by the people. It would be perfidious toward them to 
put on the constitution a different construction from that 
which induced them to adopt it. 

The people of each of the states who adopted the 
constitution, except Massachusetts, owned slaves : yet 
they certainly considered their own constitutions to be 
republican. And the federal government has not, by 
virtue of its power to guarantee a republican constitution 
to each state in the Union, required a change of the con- 
stitution of any one of those states. 

The constitution recognizes the right to the slave 
property, and it thereby appears that it was intended by 
the convention and by the people, that that property 
should be secure. The representation of each state, in 
this House, is proportioned by the whole number of free 
persons, and three-fifths of the number of the slaves. In 
forming the constitution, the southern states, Virginia 
excepted, insisted on, and obtained a provision, authoriz- 
ing them t© import slaves for twenty years, (a) And 

(a) Extract from Lather Martin's report to the Legislature of 
Maryland. 
VVe were then told by the delegates of the two first of 
those states, (Georgia and South Carolina,) that their states 



the constitution provides that slaves running 1 away from 
their masters in one state, and going into another, shall 
be delivered up to their masters. 

But the gentleman from New York contended, that, 
by a " person held to service or labor in one state, under 
the laws thereof," the constitution means an apprentice, 
or bound servant. Sir, the definition of a word conveys 
its meaning to our understandings more clearly than the 
word itself ; and the very best definition of the word 
'• slave," that can be given, is, a person held to service or 
labor under the laws of a state The constitution describes 
apprentices or bound servants as "those bound to service 
for a term of years;" and directs that they shall be included 
in the number of free persons. The apprentice or bound 
servant is bound to service or labor by contract ; the 
slave is held to service or labor by law. A person "held 
to service or labor" is the constitutional and legal defi- 
nition of the word " slave," and is superadded to the 
word " slave" or " slaves," in one act of Congress for 
suppressing the slave trade no less than eight times, (b) 
Thus the obligation of state laws, which hold men to 
service or labor, is acknowledged by the constitution,and 
by the laws of the United States. 

To render this right, with other rights, still more se- 
cure, Virginia, in adopting the constitution, declared 
that " no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, 
abridged, restrained or modified, except in those instances 
in which power is given by the constitution for those 

■would never agree to a system which put it in the power of 
the general government to prevent the importation of slaves ; 
and that they, as the delegates from those states, must withhold 
their assent from such a system." 

The clause referred to relates solely to the importation of 
slaves from abroad. The convention used the words " migra- 
tion or importation" as synonymous. In like manner they say, 
tax or duty, alliance or confederation, imposts or duties, a- 
greement or compact, service or labor, resolution or vote, for 
the purpose of elucidating their meaning. This clause, at one 
time, stood thus before the convention : " The migration or im- 
portation of such persons as the several states, now existing, 
shall drink proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the le- 
gislature prior to the year 1800 ; but a tax or duty may be im- 
posed on such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding 
f he average ot the duties laid on *imports." This proposition 
to lay an ad valorem duty shews that nothing was in the con- 
templation of the convention but the slave trade. 

(b) 4 vol. laws, p. 94. 

* Printed " imposts ;" an obvious mistake. 



purposes ;" and New York declared, that " every power, 
jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said constitu- 
tion clearly delegated to the Congress of the United 
States, remains to the people of the several states, or to 
their respective state governments." Several of the 
other states made similar declarations. But the states 
were not content to declare their rights. An amendment 
to the constitution declares that, " The powers not dele- 
gated to the United States by the constitution, nor pro- 
hibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states re- 
spectively, or to the people." The right to own slaves 
being acknowledged and secured by the constitution, 
can you proscribe what the constitution guarantees ? 
Can you touch a right reserved to the states or the peo- 
ple ? You cannot. 

It has been said,(c) that in Virginia 25,559 free persons 
elect a member of the House of Representatives, and 
that in a northern state 35,000 free persons elect a mem- 
ber. Let us state the fact. A member from Vermont 
represents 35,000 persons only ; a member from Virginia 
represents more than 42,000 persons. In forming a con- 
stitution for a state, it may be proper that a given number 
of free persons in one part of the state should have as 
much political power as an equal number in any other 
part of the same state : but, in forming a constitution for 
a confederacy of states, each should exercise a share of 
power, and bear a share of public burdens, proportioned 
to their respective ability. The ability of a state may be 
fairly estimated by its capacity for labor — the source of 
wealth. If men only were enumerated, there might be 
some reason for dropping a portion of the number of 
the slaves ; yet even that is doubtful, as many of the 
freemen are idle, and belong to the unproductive class, 
whereas the men slaves are generally productive labor- 
ers -. but why should five women or five children, who 
are unproductive, and have no political rights, be count- 
ed five, in proportioning the number of representatives, 
while five negro men, productive laborers, are counted 
only three ? A concession was indeed made in the con- 
vention in proportioning the representatives among the 
states ; but it seems to me that the southern states made 
it, in agreeing to count only three-fifths of the slaves. 

It has been said that the allowance to the slave holding- 
states of representation for three-fifths of the slave popu- 
lation, was a great concession to the slave holding states, 
but that the concession was definite ; its full extent was 
comprehended, and it was a settlement between the oft- 

{c) Bv Mr. King, in his pamphlet, 
1 *' 



ginal thirteen states. And none of these assertions seem 
to be correct. There were but twelve states in the con- 
vention; therefore no settlement wa3 made between 
thirteen states. And the constitution says, that " new 
states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
The states thus admitted are entitled to representation 
for three-fifths of their slaves, by express words : " Re- 
presentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among 
the several states which may be included in this Union, 
according to their respective numbers," &c. So that, if 
the new state is included in this Union, it shall have a 
representation according to its federal numbers, saith the 
constitution. Therefore, the concession was not definite, 
nor its extent comprehended, as has been affirmed. 

But why is the representation on this floor spoken of 
as the representation of the free population ? Our con- 
stituents are the qualified electoi s only; but we represent 
the states, the whole population, and the whole wealth 
of the community. The ratio of representation is the 
main pillar of the constitution; and it does not become 
those who are sworn to support it to be undermining its 
foundations. 

It has been said that the states in which slavery is pro- 
hibited, ultimately, though with reluotance, acquiesced 
in what is called the disproportionate number of repre- 
sentatives and electors that was secured to the slave-hold- 
ing states. But it appears by the journal of the conven- 
tion, that, within twelve days after the convention com- 
menced its deliberations, the proposition to fix the ratio 
of representation, in the manner in which it was settled, 
was made by Mr. Wilspn, of Pennsylvania, and immedi- 
ately agreed to ; nine states voting for it, among which 
were Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Penn- 
sylvania. It was, indeed, afterwards debated ; and three 
propositions were offered to the convention. The first 
was to enumerate free persons only ; this was the pro- 
position of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, and was ultimately 
voted for by New Jersey only. The second was to enu- 
merate all persons ; this was the proposition of Mr. Pinck- 
ney, of South Carolina, and was ultimately supported 
only by South Carolina and Georgia. The third was Mr. 
Wilson's proposition, to enumerate three-fifths of the 
slaves ; which proposition was supported by the other 
states, and became a part of the constitution. That mode 
of enumeration had been previously agreed on by the 
old Congress, in April, 1783, for ascertaining the pro- 
portion of the public burdens that should be imposed on 
each of the United States. 

It has been said that Congress have power to regulate 



commerce among the several states, and therefore may 
prohibit carrying slaves into Missouri. I answer, that a 
power to regulate commerce is not a power to prohibit 
commerce. The suppression of the slave trade does not 
depend on the power to regulate commerce alone. It 
is authorized by the clause which declares that Congress 
shall not prohibit the importation of slaves prior to 1808. 
The power of Congress is to regulate commerce among 
the several states, and not to regulate the commerce of 
a single state. No preference is to be given, by any re- 
gu'ation of commerce, to the ports of one state over 
those of another. And if you were about to exercise 
one of your own constitutional powers, I presume you 
would not call on Missouri to execute your power, by 
inserting a clause in her constitution. 

The honorable member from Ohio claims for Congress 
power to "provide for the general welfare of the United 
States," and justifies the imposition of the restriction as 
a provision for the general welfare. If this power is 
granted by the constitution, Congress possess absolute 
power, which, in Rome, was conferred on the Dictator 
by an authority to " take care that the republic received 
no damage." 

With a view to put an end to this claim on the part of 
Congress, of power to pass whatever law they t please, 
which has been set up formerly, and may be set up again, 
it will be useful to examine how the first clause of the 
eighth section of the first article of the Constitution was 
understood by the Convention who formed it, and the 
people who adopted it. On the 6th of August, the clause 
in question stood in the draft of the Constitution thus : 
" The Legislature of the United States shall have power 
to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises." On 
the 18th a proposition was made to assume the state 
debts, which was committed to a committee. On the 22d 
Mr. Rutledge reported, from that committee, this amend- 
ment ; at the end of the first clause of the first section 
of the 7th article, add, " for the payment of the debts 
and necessary expenses of the United States : provided," 
Sic. Onthe 25th, it was moved to add to the first clause 
of the first section of the 7th article, " for the payment 
of the said debts, and for defraying the expenses that 
shall be incurred for the common defence and general 
welfare ;" which then passed in the negative. On the 
31st the undecided parts of the Constitution were re- 
ferred to a committee of eleven, who, on the 4th of Sep- 
tember, reported this addition and alteration ; the first 
clause of the first section of the seventh article to read 
as follows : " The Legislature shall have power to lay 



8 

and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the 
debts, and provide for the common defence and general 
welfare of the United States." The clause thus reported 
is pointed with comas only, throughout. On the 8th of 
September, a committee of five were appointed " to re- 
vise the style, and arrange the articles agreed to by the 
House." No question was afterwards taken on this part 
of the clause. And an entry made on the 14th Septem- 
ber, after the revision was reported, proves the false- 
hood of those copies which separate this clause into two 
distinct clauses ; it says, " add at the end of the first 
clause of the eighth section, first article, «but all duties, 
imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the U- 
nited States." It obviously appears, that the committee 
of eleven used the words u to pay the debts and provide 
for the common defence and general welfare of the U- 
nited States," to express the same meaning as " for the 
payment of said debts and for defraying the expenses that 
shall be incurred for the common defence and general 
welfare;" the words of the amendment moved on the 
25th of August. It is a limitation of the power of taxa- 
tion, which the Convention intended should not be carri- 
ed further than was necessary to pay the debts and pro- 
vide for the general welfare. It confers a power to raise 
money as a means of executing the other powers of the 
government. How the clause came to be divided into 
two clauses, as it appears in some copies, which may be 
deemed falsified copies, cannot perhaps be now ascer- 
tained. 

Such was the explanation of the meaning of this clause 
given to the people when the Constitution was adopted ; 
and no other meaning ought to be, or can be imposed 
upon it. (d) 

{(}) Extract from the observations of Gov. Randolph, a member 

of the General Convention, delivered to the Convention of 

Virginia. 

" This foi-midable clause does not in the least increase the 
powers of Congress. It is only inserted for the greater caution, 
and to prevent the possibility of encroaching upon the powers 
of Congress." And, after quoting the clause, he says, " The 
plain and obvious meauing of this is, that no more duties, taxes, 
imposts, and excises, shall be laid, than are sufficient to pay 
the debts and provide for the common defence and general 
welfare of the United States." 

Extract from the observations of Mr. Marshall, ( now Chief 
Justice of the U. S.J delivered on the same occasion. 

After quoting the clause, he says, " the dehts of the Union 
ought to be paid. Ought not the common defence to be pro- 
vided for ? Is it net necessary to provide for the general wet- 



If you possessed power to legislate concerning slavery, 
ihe adoption of the proposition on your table, which goes 
to emancipate all children of slaves hereafter born in 
Missouri, would be a direct violation of the Constitution, 
which provides that "no persontshall be deprived of pro- 
perty without due process of law ; nor shall private pro- 
perty be taken for public use without just compensation." 
If you cannot take property even for public use, without 
just compensation, you certainly have not power to take 
it away for the purpose of annihilation, without compen- 
sation. And if you cannot take away that which is in ex- 
istence, you cannot take away that which will come into 
existence hereafter. If you cannot take away the land, you 
cannot take the future crops ; and if you cannot take the 
slaves, you cannot take their issue, who, by the laws of 
slavery, will be also slaves. You cannot force the peo- 
ple to give up their property. You cannot force a por- 
tion of the people to emancipate their slaves. 

By adopting this proposition, you will have proved 
that the clauses of the Constitution deemed most sacred 
by the people, are not sacred with you. The Constitu- 
tion was the work of politicians. The amendments were 
the work of the people. They are the parts of the Con- 
stitution which protect the rights of the people. The 
amendment which secures property you are about to 
violate, by emancipating, without the consent of the 
masters, the offspring of ten thousand slaves. 

If your object is not to keep down the growth of the 
western country ; if you are not in pursuit of power and 
influence ; if the future freedom of the blacks is your 
real object, and not a mere pretence, why do you not 
begin here ? Within the ten miles square, you have un- 
doubted power to exercise exclusive legislation. Pro- 
duce a bill to emancipate the slaves of Columbia ; or, if 
you prefer it, to emancipate those born hereafter. Can 

fare ? The amounts to be raised are confined to these purposes 
solely. They are not to raise money for any other purpose." 
An exact transcript of die 1st clause of the 8th section of the 1st 
article of the Constitution of the United States, "as it regards 
the words, arrangement, punctuation, and capitals," made at 
the request of Mr. Smyth, by J. B. Colvin. Esq. Clerk in the 
Department of State, from the original Constitution signed by 
the Convention : 

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect 
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and pro- 
vide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the Unit- 
ed States ; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform 
throughout the United States ; 

[The next clause begins as a paragraph." 



10 

you take away the slaves hereafter born within the Dis- 
trict, without making compensation ? I think you will 
not attempt it. And yet you will impose on others an 
obligation to do and suffer an act of injustice which you 
dare not attempt to do yourselves. 

No people ought to be bound by laws to which they 
have not lreely consented. Will you say that, by adopt- 
ing your proposition, they have consented ? Such is the 
traveller's consent, when the robber demands his purse. 
You propose a contract which no righteous judge would 
respect ; because you take advantage of, and abuse your 
power. Such would be the contract of an inexperienced 
youth, whose unjust guardian, some hoary extortioner, 
should compel him to convey away a part of his estate, 
before he would give him possession of the remainder. 

The people of Missouri will be rightfully bound by 
our laws made for the whole Union ; but we have no 
right to make local laws for the people of Missouri alone. 
We have no right to pass partial laws, that shall operate 
in some of the states, and not in others. 

You cannot limit the new states in the exercise of 
their retained powers. Whether slavery shall exist or 
not in the new states, must depend on the free will of the 
state legislatures, and of the people. If you can in this 
way prescribe the course of legislation on one subject, 
you can on any subject, or on every subject. 

No state can be bound not to change its constitution. 
The same right which Pennsylvania has of self govern- 
ment, every new state must possess of sslf government. 
They are bound to adopt a republican constitution : for 
that is a law of the whole Union. 

If you impose on Missouri the contemplated restriction, 
and Missouri forms her constitution accordingly, it will 
not be your act, but the act of Missouri that will become 
a law. Then suppose Missouri changes her constitu- 
tion ; as she made the law, she can repeal it. Your act 
can have no force, because not passed in pursuance of 
the constitution of the United States. The acts of 
Congress, passed in pursuance of the constitution, are 
laws ; but the stipulations or declarations of Congress, 
not authorised by the constitution, are not laws ; and 
they can have no sanction : for it is only the acts pass- 
ed in pursuance of the constitution that are the su- 
preme law of the land. If your act is a law, it needs 
not the aid or consent of Missouri ; and if Missouri is to 
pass the law, Missouri may repeal it. But this, say our 
opponents, would be pei-fidious on the part of Missouri ; 
and they will not presume that Missouri would violate 
her plighted faith. They detest all perfidy except that 



11 

which they themselves recommend. This would not be 
perfidy on the part of Missouri. The people of Missouri 
would only have eluded the effects of the perfidy of those 
who would have violated a solemn treaty. 

It has seemed to some that as Ohio was required to 
form a constitution agreeing- with the ordinance of Con- 
gress of 1787, which excluded slavery from the territory 
north-west of the Ohio river, therefore Missouri may be 
likewise required to exclude slavery by her constitution. 
Whatever be the effect of the ordinance of 1787, it has 
no application to Missouri. But I contend that Ohio is 
not bound by the ordinance ; that she is at liberty to de- 
cide as she pleases the question, whether she will or will 
not exclude slavery. 

Let us examine this claim set up on the part of the 
old Congress of a power to bind the people of the 
country north-west of Ohio, and their descendants fore- 
ver, by a law not repealable by any legislature whatever, 
present, or to come ; a lav which neither a convention 
of the people of Ohio, nor this Congress, nor any future 
convention or Congress, can repeal ; a law immutable 
and eternal. If there is any principle of republican go- 
vernment about which there will be no disagreement in 
this House, I presume it is this ; that all legitimate pow- 
er is derived from the people, that there is no lawful 
authority to bind any people, but what is derived from 
them. This being, as 1 suppose, admitted, I will ask, had 
the Congress of 1787-a power derived from the people, 
to bind any portion of the people and their descendants 
forever ? 

The state constitutions, which contain the only grant of 
power which had then been given by the people,did not 
mention such a body as Congress. The state legisla- 
tures, without any express authority for that purpose 
from the people, sent deputies to Philadelphia. These 
were ministers from distinct sovereign powers, foreign to 
each other. They entered into a league by a treaty cal- 
led " articles of confederation," which the several states 
ratified. The articles of confederation had the force of 
a ratified treaty. The powers thereby conferred on 
Congress were special enumerated powers ; and all not 
granted, were expressly retained to the states. The on- 
ly power of a legislative character, granted, was power 
to make rules respecting captures, and rules for the go. 
vernment of the land and naval forces of the United 
States. It may be justly questioned whether the state 
legislatures could in this form have granted legislative 
powers over the people. A power to legislate over the 
people must be delegated by them. It was deemed ne* 



12 

eessary t® apply to the people when this constitu 
tion was formed. And for a further confirmation of the 
doctrine which I maintain, I refer every gentleman to the 
bill of rights of his own state constitution. It is thus laid 
down by the convention of New York : " No authority 
shall, on any pretence whatever, be exercised over the 
people, or members of this state, but such as shall be de- 
rived from, and granted by, them." 

Virginia and other states ceded the country north west 
of the Ohio river to the United States, as well the juris- 
diction as the soil. What passed by the deed ? I answer 
a right to the soil only ; the jurisdiction could not pass to 
Congress. That body was incapable of receiving a grant 
of authority to legislate for the people north west of 
Ohio : because they were the representatives of the states, 
and not of the people. The jurisdiction was in the peo- 
ple ; or would vest in them, as soon as there should be 
people in the ceded territory. Whatever jurisdiction the 
legislature of Virginia possessed, they possessed as repre ; 
senting the people of Virginia. The jurisdiction was de- 
rived from the people ; it went with the people ; and 
not with the right of soil. 

If any are disposed to compare the cession of the north 
western territory to that of the ten miles square, I will 
call their attention to this dissimilarity. The people of 
Maryland and Virginia, including those within the ten 
miles square, ratified the present constitution, which 
vests in Congress power to exercise exclusive legislation 
over this district. The inhabitants of the ten miles 
square were also represented in the legislative assemblies 
which made the cession : but the people did not ratify 
the articles of confederation ; nor did those articles vest 
in the old Congress power to legislate over "any portion 
of the civil part of the community ; neither were the peo- 
ple of the north western territory represented in the 
legislative assemblies whieh made the cession thereof. 

At the commencement of every new settlement, whe- 
ther at Plymouth, or at Jamestown, at Botany Bay, or at 
Chilicothe, a government founded either in force or ne- 
cessity may be expected to prevail for a time. Such was 
the government exercised by the old Congress north- 
west of theOhio. But, such a government cannot bind 
a people forever. When they become independent, and 
come to frame a form of government for themselves, on 
republican principles, to maintain, that not only they, but 
also their posterity, are bound by the acts of the British 
Parliament, or the ordinances of the old Congress, is, I 
conceive, preposterous. 

All legitimate power proceeds from the people. And 



13 

although an illegitimate power may be imposed by force, 
and submitted to from necessity, it cannot bind the peo- 
ple longer than the force and necessity are present. Such 
was the power which the British parliament exercised 
before the revolution over these then colonies ; and 
such was the power asserted by the Congress of 1787 
over the north western territory. But, as the Declara- 
tion of the British Parliament, that they had power to 
bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever, does not bind 
the people of these states : so the ordinance of 1/87 
does not bind the people of Ohio any longer than they 
please to submit to it. It was an act of illegitimate 
power ; and it cannot bind those who are the source of 
all legitimate power. 

It is even doubtful, whether the ordinance was duly 
passed. By the articles of confederation, the concurrence 
of nine of the states was necessary to important trans- 
actions. The power exercised was noi given ; and of the 
powers which were given, those of making appropria- 
tions and treaties, most resemble the power exercised. It 
was necessary that nine states should concur in exercising 
either of those powers. Only eight states were pre- 
sent and concurring in passing this ordinance. 

It has been said, that the restriction on the introduc- 
tion of slavery, north west of the Ohio river, was proposed 
by Virginia, and that the southern states unanimously 
agreed to it. This is said to fix the character of inconsis- 
tency on Virginia. The fact is, that Virginia and the 
southern states voted for the whole ordinance, when com- 
pleted; but it is also true, that those states had repeatedly 
voted against the clause excluding'slavery. In April, 1784, 
a vote was taken on this clause, when Maryland, Vir- 
ginia, and South Carolina, voted against it ; North Caro- 
lina divided, and Georgia absent. And although seven 
states voted for the clause, it was rejected ; a proof that 
Congress then conceived that the concurrence of nine 
states was necessary to every clause of this ordinance ; 
which they called a « compact." In March, 1785, Mr. 
King proposed a similar clause ; Virginia, North Ca- 
rolina, Sout^i Carolina, and Georgia, voted against it ; 
eight states voted lor the commitment of it, and it was 
committed. The member from Virginia, (Mr. Grayson) 
to whom this measure is ascribed, was not a member of 
Congress in 1784. 

My honorable friend from Massachusetts, (Mr. Holmes) 
was mistaken, when he supposed that the Congress of 
1787 was bound by the ordinance of 1784, which did not 
exclude slavery from the north western territory. They 
would have been bound, had any part of the land in Ohio 



14 

been sold, not to change the ordinance of 1784, without 
the consent of Ohio. Bat no part of the land was sold, 
previous to the passage of the ordinance on the 13th Ju- 
17,1787. I have examined that matter carefully; and am 
unwilling that the committee should be under any erro- 
neous impressions that I can remove. 

I affirm that the people of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, 
are not eternally bound by the ordinance of 1787. They 
"were no party to the pretended compact ; and, if they 
had been a party, they had no power to bind the pre- 
sent generation — they had no power to bind their pos- 
terity : the people of Ohio may change their constitution 
when they please. 

It has been said that the constitution vests in Congress 
a power to make all needful regulations respecting the 
territory of the United States ; and this power, it is sup- 
posed, authorizes us to exclude slaves from the territo- 
ries of the United States, and also to demand from any 
of those territories about to become states, a stipulation 
for the exclusion of slaves. The clause of the constitu- 
tion referred to, reads thus : " The Congress shall have 
power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and re- 
gulations respecting the territory or other property be- 
longing to the United States." It has been contended 
that this gives a power of legislation over persons and 
private property within the territories of the U. States. 
The clause obviously relates to the territory belonging to 
the United States, as property only. The power given 
is to dispose of, and make all needful regulations respect- 
ing, the territorial property, or other property of the U. 
States ; and Congress have power to pass all laws neces- 
sary and proper to the exercise of that power. This 
clause speaks of the territory as property, as a subject of 
sale. It speaks not of the jurisdiction. (e.) That the Con- 
vention considered as being provided for by the ordi- 
nance of Congress. This clause contains no grant of pow- 
er to legislate over persons and private property within 
a territory. A power to dispose of, and make all need- 
ful regulations respecting the property of the U. States, 
is very different from a power to legislate over the per- 
sons and the property of the people. When it was the 
intention of the Convention that the constitution should 
convey to Congress power to legislate over persons and 

(e.) This clause, as first proposed in Convention, read 
thus : "To dispose of the unappropriated lands of the 
United States ; to institute temporary governments for 
new states arising therein." The latter power was not, 
granted. See Journal Convention, page 260. 



15 

private property, they expressed themselves in terms not 
doubtfuU Thus, they said, " Congress shall have power 
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever," 
within the ten miles square. But no such power to le- 
gislate over the territories is granted. The power is, to 
dispose of, and make all needful regulations respecting 
the property of the United States. When that is sold and 
conveyed, it ceases to be an object of the power to make 
regulations respecting the property of the United States ; 
and if the construction contended for by our opponents, 
be correct, and Congress possess power to legislate for a 
territory, that would not authorise them to make regula- 
tions which should continue in force when the territory 
became a state, and the United States ceased to own pro- 
perty therein. 

The states of Ohio and Indiana have excluded slavery. 
They did it freely, and of their own choice. But will 
their representatives admit that those states are less free 
to decide on this question than other states ? Will they 
declare that their states do not possess equal rights with 
Pennsylvania ? Will they acknowledge that their states 
do not possess the same reserved rights that the other 
states of the Union possess ? Will they agree that their 
states are states of inferior grade, bound by authority of 
Congress to exclude slavery ? And will they, therefore, 
concur in imposing the same restrictions on their breth- 
ren of Missouri ? I trust that they will not ; that they 
will maintain the political equality of their own states 
with other states in the Union ; and that they will leave 
it to the people of Missouri to decide the question for 
themselves, as the people of Ohio and Indiana have deci- 
ded it for themselves. If these states deem themselves 
bound in chains, I hope they will not therefore desire to 
impose them on Missouri ; and if they deem themselves 
free, they will generously impart the same freedom to 
others. 

Sir, if this proposition is adopted, it will be regarded 
hereafter as an exercise of the power to guarantee a re- 
publican form of government to every state in the Union. 
You are about to admit a state, and you require her to 
insert in her constitution a clause against slavery. Will 
it not seem that you have done this by your authority to 
guarantee a republican form of government ? I think it 
will ; for you have no other power that seems to warrant 
prescribing in part the form of the state constitution. If, 
in the exercise of this power, you may require of a new 
state to insert in her constitution a clause against slavery, 
you may, under the same authority, require an old state 
to add such a clause to her constitution. Thus you may 



16 

require of the old states to exclude slavery, or provide 
for its abolition. The slave-holding states must make 
common cause with Missouri ; for the recognition of 
such a power in this government would be fatal to 
them. 

This nation is bound by the treaty with France for 
the purchase of Louisiana, to incorporate the inhabitants 
of the ceded territory into the Union qf the United 
States, according to the principles of the federal constitu- 
tion ; to admit them to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United 
States. Among the fundamental principles of the con- 
stitution of the United States, are these: In fixing the 
ratio of representation, five slaves are to be counted 
equal to three free persons. Every state in the Union 
shall have a republican form of government. The pow- 
ers not delegated to the United States by the constitu- 
tion, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to 
the states respectively, or to the people. 

But the honorable member from New-York, (Mr. Tay- 
lor) maintained that it is a principle of the constitution of 
the United States, that all men are free aad equal ; and 
he asserted that " The American nation never sanction- 
ed the right of slavery !"* The gentleman doubtless 
means to be correct in what he asserts to the cemmittee: 
But if he had asserted that " The American nation never 
sanctioned a right in its citizens to catch fish on the 
Grand Bank," the assertion would not have been more 
incorrect than that which he has made. As to that clause 
of the Declaration of Independence in which Congress 
stated their opinion that men were created equal, and 
that liberty was an unalienable right ; it has the same 
force and effect, as a declaration of the like opinion by 
any other equal number of persons of the same ability 
and intelligence, having no political power. Congress 
was then composed of ministers from the states. Even 
the articles of confederation did not then exist ; and 
they certainly did not confer on Congress a power to 
emancipate slaves, when they did come into existence. 
Suppose that the Congress of 1776 had declared their 
religious creed ; would that have established a religion 
for the United States ? I presume not. It would have 
been said that they had nothing- to do with that subject. 
They were charged with the exterior relations of the 
colonies, and had no power to emancipate a single slave. 
They asserted that man cannot alienate his liberty, 

*This was Mr. Taylor's expression, though not thus re- 
ported. 



U 

nor by compact deprive his posterity of liberty. Slaves 
are not held as having alienated their liberty by compact. 
They are held under the law and usage of nations, from 
the remotest times of which we have any historical know- 
ledge, and by the municipal laws of the states, over 
which the Congress of 1776 had not, and this Congress 
have not, any control. We agree with the Congress of 
1776, that men, on entering into society, cannot alienate 
their right to liberty and property, and that they cannot, 
by compact, bind their posterity. And, therefore, we con- 
tend that the people of Missouri cannot alienate their 
rights, or bind their posterity by a compact with Congress. 

We are to understand this declaration of the opinion 
of Congress as they intended it should be understood. — 
They certainly did not mean to say that such are the na- 
tural rights of man that they cannot be abridged by civil 
laws. They meant that an oppressed people may, if 
they are able, resist, and assert their freedom. They 
asserted the independence of the states against parlia- 
mentary usurpation : and that independence we main- 
tain, except so far as it has been freely surrendered by 
the constitution. 

But the gentleman said, that " the American nation 
never sanctioned the right of slavery " Sir, the old Con- 
gress expressly sanctioned the right of slavery, in Sep- 
tember, 1782, when they passed this resolution : " Re- 
solved, Tftat the Secretary of Foreign Affairs be, and he 
is hereby, directed to obtain, as.speedily as possible, au* 
thentic returns of the slaves and other property which, 
have been carried off or destroyed, in the course of the 
war, by the enemy, and to transmit the same to the Mi- 
nisters Plenipotentiary for negociating peace."(^j They 
sanctioned the right of slavery when they commissioned 
agents " to obtain the delivery of all negroes, and other 
property of the inhabitants of the United States in the 
possession of the British forces, or any subjects of, ©r 
adherents to, his Britannic Majesty." (~g_) They sanc- 
tioned the right of slavery when they ratified the provi- 
sional and definitive treaties of peace with Great Britain, 
containing this clause ; " His Britannic Majesty shall, 
with all convenient speed, and without causing any des- 
truction, or carrying away any negroes, or other proper- 
ty of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his ar- 
mies.*? (hj They recognized the right of slavery in A- 
pril, 1783, by providing for an enumeration of the free 
persons in the states, and three-fifths of the slaves, fij 

CO 1 vol. state papers, page 533. fgj Same, paa;e 234. 
ChJ t vol. laws, 198. ft J 1 vol. laws, 31. 



18 

The whole nation sanctioned the right of slavery, by a- 
dopting the constitution, which provides for an enume- 
ration of slaves, a representation founded thereon, and 
for the restoration of fugitive slaves to their masters, ac- 
knowledging 1 the obligation of state laws, which hold 
men to labor or service. The Congress, acting under 
the constitution, have sanctioned the right of slavery, 
by providing for an enumeration of slaves for the pur- 
pose ot taxing them,, by taxing them and making the 
tax a lien on them as property, (kj If the gentleman 
would tiave further proof, I refer him to the several acts 
for taking the census, in which slaves are included. To 
the acts prohibiting the slave trade, which allow the trans- 
portation of slaves from state to state for sale ; and permit 
the sale, under the state laws, of the Africans captur- 
ed. (~IJ And also to the act for dividing Louisiana into 
two territories, which authorizes the removal of Ameri- 
can slaves into that country. f m J 

Thus, as well the old Congress, as the Congress under 
the constitution, have, in the most explicit manner, re- 
cognized slaves, by that name, as property. It therefore 
appears that if the gentleman (Mr. Taylor) had been 
disposed to make an unfounded assertion to mislead the 
committee, of which he is incapable, he could not have 
made one more susceptible of complete refutation, than 
is that which he hazarded, when he said that "the Ame- 
rican nation never santioned the right to slavery." 

By treaty, we are bound to admit Missouri into the U- 
nion ; to allow her a representation for her slaves ; to 
guarantee to her a republican form of government, (that 
is, a government by and for the people themselves, not 
a government imposed on them, nor a patrimonial gov- 
ernment;) and to leave her all power not delegated by 
the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited 
by it to the states. Treaties are in part the su- 
preme law of the land, and paramount to the con- 
stitution of any state : yet you propose to violate the 
treaty with France by the means of a state constitution, 
which is of inferior obligation to a treaty. 

It has been urged, not indeed at this session, as a 
reason for violating the treaty with France, that the pre- 
sent government of that nation will not insist on the strict 
performance of its stipulations. Although the right 
of the people of Missouri rests on a treaty, the 
question arises between them and their own government; 
and it would be considered criminal in them to apply for 

C kj 3 vol. laws, 84. 100, 1Q2. flj 4 vol. laws, 06, 9^ 

fm J 3 vol. laws, 607. 



19 

protection to any other government. But the former 
sovereign of the country has made a stipulation on be- 
half of the people, and to that stipulation we have agreed 
in the most solemn manner. If we do not perform our 
engagements, we shall be deemed a perfidious, faithless 
nation ; and yet it has been proposed to violate the trea- 
ty, because the powerful monarch with whom we made 
it reigns no more. 

Will you be unjust, false, and perfidious, because you 
are powerful ? Would it be honorable to violate a trea- 
ty because those who claim the benefits of its provisions 
are our own citizens ? Should the treaty with Spain be 
ratified, will you refuse to pay your own citizens for 
Spanish spoliations, because Spain, who stipulated on 
their behalf, is not likely to declare war against you if 
you do not ? By your constitution, a treaty is the su- 
preme law of the land, and paramount to the constitution 
which you propose to force Missouri to adopt. You 
may, indeed, repeal the treaty by an act of Congress : 
but the effect of a measure of that kind should be well 
considered. And you must repeal the treaty directly or 
by implication before the proposed measure can have 
the desired effect : For the treaty, until it is repealed, 
is paramount to the imposed constitution ; and the judg- 
es would sustain it. 

Beware! You have no right to Missouri but what the 
treaty gives you. The treaty gives you Missouri on con- 
dition that you secure the property of the inhabitants, 
and incorporate them into the Union of the United States 
with all the rights of citizens, according to the principles 
of the Federal Constitution, which reserves to them all 
powers not delegated by that Constitution. If I receive 
a deed on condition, I am bound to perform the condi- 
tion. Every engagement in a treaty is a condition, the 
breach of which releases the other party from his en- 
gagements.^!) Perhaps they are mistaken who suppose 
that the present Government of France is deficient in 
spiric and honor, and will not ihsist on the observance of 
existing treaties made with France. Would not England 
like to see France and the United States brought into 
collision ? Would not all Europe be pleased to see the 
power of France interposed between the United States 
and Mexico ? France wants colonies and commerce ; 
and half the people of Louisiana are Frenchmen. 

I have heard it said, in relation to this question, that 
if a territory is conquered, the conqueror may govern it 
as he pleases. But you did not conquer Louisiana. You 

in) Grotiuss 



20 

received a deed of trust of this territory ; and if you do 
not perform the trust, you have no title. It was said at 
the last session, " we purchased the territory, and had a 
right to sell it ; therefore we may annex such conditions 
to its admission into the Union as we please." It is true 
that you paid money for the territory; but you took a 
conditional deed, and are bound by the conditions in the 
deed. You have no right to sell it to a foreign power : 
for you have bound yourselves to incorporate the inhabi- 
tants in the Union of the United States, according to the 
principles of the Federal Constitution. This promise 
cannot be fulfilled but by admitting them as states : for 
territories are not " incorporated in the Union of the 
states." The Constitution provides that "the citizens 
of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immu- 
nities of citizens in the several states;" this was intend- 
ed for the benefit of those citizens who should remove 
from one state to another. The treaty provides that the 
inhabitants of Louisiana shall be admitted "to the enjoy- 
ment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of ci- 
tizens of the United States." This provision is not for 
the benefit of the traveller from Louisiana. It is intend- 
ed for the inhabitants of Louisiana in their states ; that 
they shall have the s .me rights in their states, that other 
citizens of the United States have in their states ; conse- 
quently, that they shall possess the right of self-govern- 
ment. 

It has been said, that although by treaty we are bound 
to maintain the inhabitants of Louisiana in their property 
until they are incorporated in the Union of the United 
States, the stipulation is but temporary, and not after- 
wards obligatory. It seems, therefore, to be inferred, that 
we may take away their property after they have been 
admit.edinto the Union as a state, although previously 
it is secure. The name of no man can obtain respect for 
such an argument. When they shall be incorporated in- 
to the Union of the states, their property will be sacred. 
Can these inhabitants be incorporated in the Union of 
the United States, and their enjoyment of their religion, 
liberty, and property, be afterwards rendered insecure by 
Congress? The great advocate for depriving them of 
their property, says expressly, "Congress have no power 
to prevent the free enjoyment of the Catholic reli- 
gion." (o) Then it is equally certain that Congress have 
no power to prevent the free enjoyment of property : 
for religion and property are alike secured to them by 
the same clause of the treaty, and by those provisions of 

(o) Mr. King's pamphlet. 



21 

the Constitution which declare that Congress shall make 
no law respecting- an establishment of religion; that pro- 
perty shall'not be taken for public use without just com- 
pensation ; and that which declares that all power not 
delegated is reserved to the states and the people. — 
What forms the Union of the United States ? The Con- 
stitution. Then to be incorporated in the Union of the 
United States is to become a party to the Constitution- 
entitled to all the rights and privileges which it confers, 
and liable to all the duties which it imposes. 

It has been said, that Congress alone are to judge of 
the expediency of admitting a state. If that was conced- 
ed, it would not follow that they should have power to 
razee a state, making a new class, by depriving the ad- 
mitted state of equai rights. It might justify the refusal 
of Congress to admit the new state : but Congress have 
sanctioned the treaty, executed it in part, by admitting 
one state, and selling the ceded lands. The expediency 
of the incorporation should have been considered before 
Congress sanctioned the treaty. It is now too late. The 
faith of the nation is pledged irrevocably ; and so is the 
faith of Congress. 

You have not only pledged the public faith to France 
and the people of Louisiana, but you have made this sti- 
pulation with the emigrants to that country, (those emi- 
grants being mostly slave-holders; fur you have invited 
the slave holders to go to Missouri, by freely admitting 
their slaves, which you excluded from the territories of 
Indiana and Illinois.) You have said in your laws to 
those emigrants from the southern states, " no man shall 
be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the 
judgment of his peers, and the law of the land. If the 
public exigencies make it necessary, for the common pre- 
servation, to take the property of any person, or to de- 
mand his particular services, full compensation shall be 
made for the same." 

It is said, you have made conditions with Louisiana, and 
therefore it is contended that you may make conditions 
with Missouri. If you made conditions with Louisiana 
that you had no right to demand, that will not prove that 
you have a right to make any condition you please with 
Missouri. Let us examine those conditions. The first 
was for a republican form of government. A good con- 
dition, because agreeable to the Constitution. The se- 
cond, for religious liberty. This condition is supposed to 
be void, and that the people of Louisiana may require 
their officers to acknowledge a future state of rewards 
and punishments, as in Pennsylvania ; or to be Christ- 
ians, as in Maryland, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts; 



or to be Protestants, as in New York, New Jersey, and 
North Carolina. A third, that the judicial proceeding's 
shall be in the language of the judicial and legislative 
proceedings of the United States. This they would not 
submit to ; but they agreed to use the language in which 
the Constitution is written. 1 suppose the condition is 
void ; and that they may keep their records in any other 
language when they please. A fourth condition respects 
the public lands. This is useless. We have power to 
enact needful regulations on that subject; and do not 
depend on the Constitution of Louisiana for any of our 
powers. A fifth condition is for the navigation of the 
river Mississippi, toll free. This they rejected ; but you 
declared it a condition of their admiss on. The right de- 
pends not on your declaration ; it depends on the law of 
nations, on former treaties, and on the power of Congress 
to regulate commerce. Suppose that they should im- 
pose toll on the navigation of the river : will you expel 
them from the Union ? I presume that you will not. 

I trust that the only enquiry that this Government will 
make in relation to the treaty with France, is, what have 
we engaged to perform ? It will never condescend to 
enquire, what is the penalty if we violate our faith, and 
who will enforce it? Shall we, at the moment when our 
Envoy at the Court of Spain proclaims aloud, that this 
Government will punish perfidy, violate our faith pledg- 
ed to France, because, as the great Napoleon no longer 
reigns, we expect the violation might pass unpunished ? 
I hope we are not thus perfidiously to imitate Punic faith, 
by " paltering" with our engagements. When the fu- 
ture historian shall speak of your conduct and that of 
Ferdinand, he will say, " Ferdinand, in refusing to ratify 
the treaty negociated with the United States, preferred 
the chance of war, and the risk of all his foreign pos- 
sessions, to a violation of his faith pledged to three of 
his own subjects : but the United States violated a treaty 
ratified by the President and Senate, and confirmed by 
Congress, thereby depriving their own citizens of their 
property to an immense amount, consoling themselves 
with the expectation that France would allow their per- 
fidy to pass unpunished." Such will be his testimony; and 
the judgment of posterity will condemn you. 

I will next examine the justice of the proposed mea- 
sure. It is a principle of the Constitution that no advan- 
tage shall be given to some of the states over others. It 
was with a view to prevent partiality, that it was provided 
by the Constitution that import duties should be uniform, 
and that no export duties should be laid ; that direct tax- 
es should be laid according to the census ; and that r.r 



2S 

preference should be given to the ports of any state. li 
is a sacred duty of Congress to do equal and impartial 
justice to every part of the Union. 

Taxes may be laid to promote the general welfare of 
the United States. If fifteen millions of dollars of the 
money raised by taxes paid by the whole people, are ap- 
propriated to purchase a territory, is it just to exclude 
therefrom the inhabitants of a part of the states ? The 
inhabitants of the slave-holding states, being slave-holders, 
you exclude them if you exclude their slaves, as effectual- 
ly as you would exclude married men by a law that chil- 
dren and married women should not come into the terri- 
tory. If you had power to enact such a law, the inequal- 
ity^ its operation should deter you from passing an act, 
so partial and unjust. 

Shall the slave-holders be declared incapable of hold- 
ing any share of the territory purchased with the money 
of the whole people ? Have they not contributed their 
full proportion of the money paid for the territory ? By 
such a measure you will deprive the southern people of an 
equal privilege — that of taking with them their families. 
Will you compel the citizen of Kentucky, the wants of 
whose children require more lands, when he is about to 
remove to Missouri, to sell the nurse who has fed his 
ohildren from her breast, the faithful man who has long 
attended on his person, the maids of b is w ife & daughters, 
and the little children born in his family, before he can 
remove to the country of his choice ? Yes ; this you pre- 
pose to do ; yet talk of your humanity ! We are told with 
unfeeling apathy, by the great advocate of the measure 
under consideration, that "the slaves owned by the inhabi- 
tants might be sent for sale into states were slavery exists." 

So far as the proposed measure may affect Virginia, it 
will be an unworthy return for the most generous liberal- 
ity. A large portion of the country north of Ohio was 
within her chartered limits. Alone and unaided she 
conquered it from the common enemy. She ceded it to 
the United States for the common benefit, without any 
equivalent. She submitted to a regulation as unjust as it 
was unauthorised, by which almost the whole of her po- 
pulation were excluded from that fine country, once 
their own. And now, after she has paid her full propor- 
tion of the price of another country, it is proposed to ev 
elude he? people from that also. 

The plan of our opponents seems to be, to confine the 
slave population to the southern states ; to the countries 
where sugar, cotton, and tobacco, are cultivated ; and this 
under pretence of humanity to the blacks. But do you 
not perceive, sir, that by confining the slaves to a part of 



9A 

the country where the crops are raised for exportation, 
and bread and meat are purchased, that you doom them 
to scarcity and hunger ? Is it not obvious that the way 
to render the situation of those people more comfortable 
is to allow them to be taken to those parts of the coun- 
try where bread and meat are produced in profusion, 
with'little labor, and where, consequently, there is not the 
same motive to force the slaves to incessant toil, that 
there is in the countries where cotton, sugar, and tobacco 
are raised for exportation. 

It is proposed to hem in the blacks in a sterile country, 
where they are hard worked andill fed, that they may be 
rendered unproduc ive, and their race prevented from 
increasing". Yet in recommending- the utility of this mea- 
sure in diminishing the number of the negroes, occasion 
is taken to declaim against slavery, and to irritate the 
slaves against their masters ; those very masters who are 
desirous to improve the condition of their slaves, by re- 
moving them to the fertile and extensive plains of the 
west. 

The proposed measure, recommended under the mask 
of humanity, would be extreme cruelty to the blacks. 
You would not only doom them to sea 1 city and hard la- 
bor; but, by confining them to a particular district, where 
their numbers will be formidable, you will cause their 
chains to be rendered more weighty. The southern 
people seeing that they must rely on themselves for safe- 
ty will, if they have common prudence, take precautions 
for their security. Already the slaves experience the ef- 
fects of your intermeddling with their situation. Since the 
incendiary speeches of the last session, Georgia has put a 
stop to manumission, (q) andNortn Carolina has essayed 
to put a stop to instruction. 

If you are truly desirous that, the slaves shall be treated 
with humanity, let them be as much as possible dispersed. 
The smaller their number in any district, the better will 
be their situation. It is well known that those farmers 
who have only two or three slaves, feed, clothe, and 
govern them as they do their children ; while those of 
the great proprietors are not so well fed or clothed, more 
restrained, and more constantly engaged in labor. If, in- 
stead of favoring the dispersion of the slaves, a measure 
truly dictated by humanity, you confine them to the 
states wherein they now are, you will be as cruel as him, 
who, when besieging an enemy's city, fired upon the 



(q)This law, noticed in the newspapers of 1819, is said to 
have passed before the debate alluded to. It prohibits emanci- 
pation, except by the Legislature on the consent of the master. 



25 

women and children who attempted to come out, that 
thereby he might occasion a famine in the city as soon as 
possible. 

I will next consider the effect which the proposed 
measure may have upon the safety of the community. 
There were in the United States, at the taking of the 
last census, of free whites 5,765,000, of slaves 1,165,000, 
or about one slave to five free whites. There were of 
free blacks 181,000, making the whole number of the 
blacks about 1,346,000, there being more than four whites 
to one black. Now it is apparent, that were these peo- 
ple equally dispersed in every district, county, and town, 
of every state, there would be no danger from any in- 
surrectional movement by them in any part of the Unit- 
ed States. Equal dispersion would produce not only an 
increase of comfort to the slaves, but also perfect securi- 
ty to the whites. 

Let us suppose that, instead of being dispersed through 
ten of the s*ates, as they now are, that the slaves were 
all collected in Virginia ; that state would then have 
whites 551,000, blacks 1,346,000, or about five blacks to 
two whites. What would be the consequence ? Let 
Saint Domingo answer. But Virginia had actually 
392,000 slaves, or about eight slaves to eleven white per- 
sons. She is yet safe, if her legislators have foresight, 
decision, and firmness. And I hope it will never be said 
of Virginia, " Died Abner as a fool dieth : thy hands 
were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters." 

As equal dispersion of the slaves would be perfect se- 
curity, and concentration of them in a single state would 
be probable destruction, what may be said of the policy 
of the amendment on your table, which proposes to re- 
turn upon the old states, or throw into Mississippi and 
Louisiana, where they are already too numerous, ten 
thousand slaves from Missouri. It is evident that the 
more you concentrate them, the greater the danger ; the 
more you disperse them, the greater the safety. Where 
the proportion of the slaves to the free persons is too 
great, it ought, by all just means, to be lessened. 

Dispersion is the true policy to pursue towards a dis- 
tinct people, whose numbers in any part of an empire 
endanger its peace. Thus Salmanazer dispersed the Is- 
raelites throughout his empire, and Vespasian, Adrian, 
and Constantine, dispersed the Jews. It was good poli- 
cy in Valens to disperse the children of the Goths in 
Asia. So, in our own times, the British, finding that the 
Maroons were dangerous in Jamaica, transported them to 
Nova Scotia. Suppose that 50,000 prisoners had been 
taken in the late war, would you have deemed it safe to 
3 



26 

have cantoned the whole of them in Vermont? Or would 
you not have dispersed them through several of the 
states ? Doubtless you would have dispersed them. And 
for the same reason you should disperse the slaves. 

In legislating with a view to the good of the whole 
community, you should favor the dispersion of this peo- 
ple as much as possible ; and if you take no step for that 
purpose, at least place no obstacle in the way of those 
who are willing to receive them from us. As the pro- 
portion of the slaves to the whites is increased above a 
certain ratio, so is the state weakened. Tennessee or 
Missouri are not weakened, by their slave population, in 
their ability to repel a savage foe, or any foe that 
can appear in the West ; but the Southern states are 
weakened in their ability to repel an invading enemy, 
who should pursue the policy of Clinton, Howe, and 
Dunmore. If you encourage the Southern whites, who 
are not slave-holders, to emigrate, but prevent the emi- 
gration of slave-holders, with their slaves, you change the 
proportion of the blacks and whites,and weaken the weak- 
est parts of the Union. 

Although Virginia has a greater proportion of 'slaves 
than any state in the Union, except Louisiana, yet on the 
subject of slavery she is liable to no reproach. In her 
declaration of independence, which preceded that of the 
United States two months, she charged the British king 
with an inhuman use of his negative, in not suffering her, 
while a colony, to put an end to the slave trade. She 
did put a stop to the slave trade during the revolution. 
In the convention of 1787, while New Hampshire, Mas- 
sachusetts, and Connecticut, united with Maryland and 
the Southern states, to continue the slave trade for twen- 
ty years, Virginia united with New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
and Delaware, to put an immediate end to it ; but was 
unsuccessful. (r.) The offence of kidnapping is one of 
the few offences for which the mild code of Virginia 
provides the punishment of death ;(s.) while Pennsylva- 
nia, as her Governor affirms, punishes that crime with 
greater lenity than the offence of horse-stealing. (*.) 
Virginia, indeed, keeps the blacks in a state of perpetual 
minority ; because justice to her citizens, and the safety 

(r.) See Journal of Convention, p. 291, 292. 
(s.) Such was the law of 1792. The late revisal is not to 
be had here. 

(?.) Extract from the message of the governor of Pennsyl- 
vania, Dec. ll, 18 1 9. 
" It a melancholy fact, that our laws regard the stealing of a 
horse a more heinous offence than that of stealing a man." 



27 

of" the community, require it. And -whatever the safety 
of the community requires, is right and lawful. 

The tendency of the proposition to create jealousies 
between the states, deserves serious consideration. It 
seems to me to be a sacred duty of those who govern 
this nation, to guard against every cause of division with 
the utmost care, and to practice forbearance. The con- 
stitution was formed in a spirit of concession ; and it has 
been, and will be, necessary to administer it in the same 
spirit. The people of the South deem the proposed 
measure a serious wrong. That circumstance alone should 
be a sufficient objection to any measure which cannot be 
shewn to be essential to the preservation of the commu- 
nity. In the effects of the embargo we have seen how 
impolitic it is to adopt a measure against the general op- 
position of a large section of the country. We saw that 
measure repealed for want of power to enforce it ; but 
not until it had produced extensive disaffection, which in 
the last war paralized the right arm of the United States, 
and led to that Convention which is now the subject of 
universal regret. 

You are about to prove to the Southern and Western 
people that their property and their lives are unsafe un- 
der your government ; that you mean to violate their 
claim of a right to make laws for themselves. It will not 
be good policy to convince the Southern and Western 
people of this. Are you certain that injustice cannot 
have the effect of breaking the bands of the Union ? 
Doubtless they are strong ; but the attachment to life, 
property, and the rights of freemen, is stronger. The 
states who hold slaves cannot consent that any state shall 
surrender to this government power over that description 
of property. Its value amounts to five hundred millions 
of dollars. Power over it has not been granted to this 
government for any purpose, except that of taxation ; 
nor can power over it be obtained by the concession of 
particular states, or otherwise than by an amendment to 
the constitution. 

Every state is interested that every other state shall 
preserve its rights. The states should possess the same 
rights, so that the invasion ofthe rights of one should be 
the invasion ofthe rights of all. You will unite in oppo- 
sition ten of the states ; you will form local parties, the 
most dangerous of all parties ; you will unite the state 
governments, defending state rights, to the people, de- 
fending their property to the amount of five hundred 
millions. Louisiana, being equally interested in the con- 
struction of the treaty, must make common cause with 
Missouri, and the other slave-holding states may make 
common cause with them. 



28 

If you let the people of Missouri alone to exercise the 
right of self-government, as it is exercised by the people 
of the other states, perhaps they may of themselves ex- 
clude slavery. If such is their sovereign will and plea- 
sure, be it so. Let the will of the people be done. But 
if you attempt to force your will upon them, perhaps 
they may know and duly appreciate their rights. Then 
they will not give up the sacred right of self-government. 
The people who have not a right to legislate for them- 
selves, are not free. They do not enjoy a republican 
form of government. It would be an event to be la- 
mented, if any portion of this free people should give up 
their constitutional rights. 

This proposition is hostile to the Western country. It 
tends to retard the population of Missouri, and to put off 
the time when other Western states shall come into the 
Union. Let Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois remember what 
portion of the Union is that which has uniformly favored 
the growth and prosperity of the Western country. («.) 
Let them remember what portion of the Union is that 
which was for giving up the navigation of the Mississip- 
pi to Spain. (v.) Whence came the politician who solicit- 
ed power to cede the navigation of the Mississippi to 
Spain? From New York.(w.) [The chairman (Mr. 
Baldwin) decided that these remarks were not in order, 
being inapplicable to the subject before the committee. 

(w.) Debates Conv. Virginia, 2d vol. 131. " My honorable 
friend gave a very just account of it when he said that the 
Southern states were on their guard, and opposed every mea- 
sure tending to relinquish or wave that valuable right, [the 
navigation of the Mississippi.] They would not agree to nego- 
tiate, but on condition that no proposition whatever should be 
made to surrender that great right." 

(v.) Same debates, p. 128. " A similar commission was giv- 
en to the honorable die Secretary of Foreign Affairs on the part 
of the United States, with these ultimata, * That he enter into 
no treaty, compact, or convention whatever, with the said re- 
presentative of Spain, which did not stipulate our right to the 
navigation of the Mississippi, and the boundaries as established 
in our treaty with Great Britain." 

p. 129. " The delegates of the seven easternmost states vot- 
ed that the ultimata in the Secretary's instructions be re- 
pealed." 

(w.) Same debates, p. 129, " We were greatly surprized 
that it [a treaty of commerce] should form the priucipal object 
of the project, and that a partial or temporary sacrifice of that 
interest, for the advancement of which the negotiation was set 
on foot, should be the consideration proposed to be given for it. 
But the honorable Secretary (Mr. Jay) urged that it was neces* 
sary to stand well with Spain," &c. 



29 

Mr. Smyth appealed from the decision of the chair. Mr. 
Clay (the Speaker) made some remarks in favor of allow- 
ing- considerable latitude in the debate. The question 
was not put,and Mr. Smyth proceeded.] Who opposed the 
admission of the state of Illinois into the Union ? An 
honorable member from New York.(x) Who opposed 
the admission of the state of Alabama into the Union ? 
An honorable member from New York.(y.) And who 
has proposed a measure calculated to impede the growth 
of Missouri, or to prevent her admission into the Union ? 
An honorable member from New York.(z.) 

Sir, there seems to be more in all this than meets the 
eye. At the time of the adoption of the constitution, it 
was said of the Eastern states, their language has been, 
" Let us prevent any new states from rising- in the west- 
ern world, or they will out-vote us. We will lose our 
importance, and become as nothing- in the scale of na- 
tions." This policy seems now to actuate some gentle- 
men of New York. Perhaps the politicians of that state 
see in the city of New Orleans a rising* rival to their 
great emporium. Perhaps they see in the Mississippi 
and its tributary streams, the rival of the navigation of the 
North river, the grand canal, and the Lakes. Perhaps 
they see in Missouri the very state which, at no distant 
day, may balance the great Eastern state. If they see all 
this, it is not surprizing that they are desirous to keep 
down the rising power of the West. 

An object which, as has been avowed, this measure is 
intended ultimately to effect, and which it will in part ef- 
fect, demands particular attention. That object is the 
manumission of the blacks, without either dispersing or 
colonizing them, to be effected by cooping them up in 
narrow bounds, until their encreasing- numbers, combin- 
ed with scarcity and hunger, shall render it necessary to 
manumit them, for the purpose of getting rid of them, 
Let us enquire whether this object would promote the 
welfare of the community. Suppose that the slave-holding 
states were at once to emancipate their slaves* and in- 
crease the free black population to the number of two mil- 
lions ; let us enquire what kind of citizens they are like 
to become (a • The historian Edwards, says, " the Cha- 
raibes of St. Vincent, and the Maroon negroes of Jamaica, 
were originally enslaved Africans ; and what they now 
are, the freed negroes of St. Domingo will hereafter be — 
savages in the midst of society ; without peace, security, 

(x.) Mr. Tallmadge. See Journal, for the vote. 

fy.J Mr. Taylor. 

(~z. ) The same. 

(f<) History West Indies, 4 vol. 197. 



30 

agriculture, or property ; ignorant of the duties of lite, 
and unacquainted with all the soft and endearing relations 
which render it desirable ; averse to labor, though free- 
qoenlly perishing of want ; suspicious of each other, and 
towards the rest of mankind revengeful and faithless, re- 
morseless and bloody minded ; pretending to be free, 
while groaning beneath the capricious despotism of their 
chiefs and feeling all the miseries of servitude, without 
the benefits of subordination." That distinguished poli- 
tical philosopher, John Taylor of Caroline, is well ac- 
quainted with the free blacks of Virginia, and thus gives 
their character.(6) " A free negro and mulatto class live 
upon agriculture as agents or brokers, for disposing of 
stolen products. The situation of the free negro class is 
exactly calculated to force it into every species of vice. 
Cut off from most of the rights of citizens, and from all 
the allowances of slaves, it is driven into every species of 
crime for subsistence ; and destined to a life of idleness, 
anxiety, and guilt. The slaves more widely share in its 
guilt than in its fraudulent acquisitions. They owe to it 
the perpetual pain of repining at their own condition, 
by having an object of comparison before their eyes, 
magnified by its idleness, and thefts, with impunity, into 
a temptation the most alluring to slaves; and will eventu- 
ally owe to it the consequences of their insurrections. The 
whites will reap also a harvest of consequences from the 
free negro class, and throughout all their degrees of rank 
suffer much in their morals from the two kinds of inter- 
course maintained with it. If vice is misery, this middle 
class is undoubtedly placed in a state of misery itself, and 
contributes greatly to that of the other two." 

It would seem that the situation of the blacks would 
not be improved, and that the state of society and the 
public interest would be greatly injured, by this emanci- 
pation, should it take place. But perhaps it will be said 
that a partial and gradual emancipation is what is sought 
for. If a total emancipation would be a great evil, a par- 
tial emancipation would be a lesser evil. That such par- 
tial emancipation is an evil, Col. Taylor, in the work I 
have quoted, has clearly proved. 

What would be the effect produced on the peace and 
happiness of the United States were there in them two 
races of people, free and equal, averse to mingling, one 
viewing ?he other with contempt and scorn, the other 
regarding those who despised them with hatred and 
revenge? History affords some cases where, from differ- 
ence of religion only, or of religion and descent, two 
people residing in the same country were utterly averse 

(b) In his work entitled " Arator," which no American far- 
mer, planter, or politician, should be without. 



31 

to each other. Such a case has generally produced con- 
spiracies, massacres, treasons, and wars, until one of the 
two people were either expelled or exterminated. 

Thus, in the reign of Nero, the Jews and Syrians alter- 
nately conspired against and massacred each other, with- 
out distinction or mercy. In the reign of Trajan, the 
same Jews butchered half a million of people in the pro- 
vinces of Cyprus and Cyrehe ; they ate their flesh, drank 
their blood, and made girdles of their intestines. They 
revolted under Adrian, who killed 600,000 of them, and 
dispersed the residue. They revolted under Constantine, 
who cropped their ears, branded their bodies, dispersed 
and sold them as slaves. 

The history of Spain furnishes a case well worthy of 
consideration. There dwelt two people, the one de- 
scended from the Goths, the other from the Arabs,differ- 
ing in complexion as well as religion They warred a- 
gainst each other during eight centuries : and this strug- 
gle terminated in the expulsion of one of the people. It 
was at the close of a similar contest that the Auritse, ma- 
ny centuries before, were expelledfrom Egypt and driv- 
en into Palestine. At a period still more remote, the yel- 
low Hindoos were expelled from India by a people of a dif- 
ferent complexion. 

About the year 378, the Romans deemed it necessary 
to adopt the cruel expedient of massacreing 200.000 
Goths dispersed in the cities of Asia. If we descend to- 
ward modern times, we find in 1002, the Danes, residing 
in England, were massacred by the English ; and in 1641, 
the English, residing in Ireland, were massacred by the 
Irish. Yet these were people who might have comming- 
led without the one staining the other's blood. 

We find that in the West Indies, neither the whites and 
mulattoes, nor the negroes and mulattoes, can unite and 
live together in the same country in peace and friendship, 
"Rigaud, the mulatto chief, declared that no peace would 
be permanent until one class of people, (the whites or 
mulattoes) had exterminated the other ; and Tousaint L' 
Ouverture, the negro chief, declared his intention, not 
to leave a mulatto man alive in the country. (c) The whites 
have been exterminated ; and the negroes and mulattoes 
have formed distinct and hostile communities. 

Suppose that a general emancipation was to take place, 
and the two people were to commingle, what would be 
the effect on the character of your country, throughout 
the civilized world ? Would you be willing that your 
nation should become a nation of mulattoes, and be con? 



(c) Edwards' West Indies, 4 vol. p. 52, 232. 



32 

sidered n a level with Hayti ? Are the two races really 
equal ? If so, how is it that the race of whites has pro- 
duced so many civilized nations in ancient and modern 
times, and the race of African negroes not one? 

The claims already made by the manumitted negroes 
in our country are really worthy of observation. They 
object with disdain to the plan of the colonization socie- 
ty for settling the free blacks in Africa. The plan, say 
they, is calculated to perpetuate slavery in the United 
States. They claim that the slaves shall be emancipated, 
and remain in the country « that they and their posterity, 
shall constitute a portion of the sovereign American peo- 
ple, (rf) 

Sir, it is necessary that every constitutional effort shall 
be made, both by the general and state governments, to 
effect the future peace of the two people. Let an ocean 
divide them. Let all except the full-blooded negro 
slaves be colonized immediately, or with the least possi- 
ble delay. Restore the original distinction, and let no 
middle cast remain in the country. Let the enslaved 
blacks be dispersed as much as possible ; their situation 
will become more comfortable, and their chance of being 
emancipated will become greater ; and, as they are eman- 
cipated, let them be immediately sent to the colony. 
For these purposes, let there be a rich colonization fund. 
You have a right to raise money to provide for the gene- 
ral welfare ; and by no appropriation of money that you 
can make would you more promote the general welfare. 

As the emancipation of the present race of blacks in 
this country cannot be effected, the tendency of the 
popular meetings, resolutions, pamphlets, and newspaper 
p ublications, respecting this question, merit notice and 
exposition. The philosophers, the abolition societies, 
and societies of friends to the negroes, in Europe, who 



(d) " No doubt," says Col. Taylor, " can exist of the conse- 
quences of placing two nations of distinct colors and features on 
the same theatre, to contend, not about sounds and signs, but 
for wealth and power." 

" Their manners," says Col. Taylor, speaking of our north- 
ern brethren, " will neither be improved, nor their happiness 
advanced, by sprinkling their cities with a yearly emigration of 
thieves, murderers, and villains of every degree, though recom- 
mended by the training of slavery, a black skin, a woolly body, 
and an African contour. Rewards and punishments are ren- 
dered useless by the lure of free negroes mingled with slaves, 
and by the reproaches to masters, and sympathies for slaves, 
breathed forth from the northern states. Sympathies, such as 
if the negroes should transfer their affections from their own 
species to the baboons." 



vers not at all interested in negro slavery themselves, 
produced the catastrophe of St. Domingo. The philan- 
thropists, societies, and popular meetings of the north, 
are pursuing a similar course. Like causes produce like 
effects. Our philanthropists n ay acquire as good a title 
to the execrations of the southern people as Robespierre 
and Gregoire acquired to the execration of the French 
people of St. Domingo, (e) Here I will offer the opinion 
of the historian Edwards, given after considering, with 
great attention and near observation, the events of St., 
Domingo. He says, "these reflections naturally arise 
from the circumstance, which is insontrovertibly proved 
in the following pages, namely, that the rebellion of the 
negroes in St. Domingo, and the insurrection of the mu- 
lattoes, had one and the same origin. It was not the 
strong and irresistible impulse of human nature groaning 
under oppression, that excited either of those classes to 
plunge their daggers into the bosoms of unoffending wo- 
men and helpless infants. They were driven to those 
excesses by the vile machimtions of men calling them- 
selves philosophers."(/) It appears that the proceedings 
of the abolition society in London, those of the society 
of friends to the negroes in France, and the writings and 
speeches of Gregoire, Robespierre, and others, stirred 
up the free people of color to claim equal rights, and 
these instigated the negro slaves to insurrection. Oge, 
the ambassador from the French reformers to the mu- 
lattoes, made a confession, wherein he detailed at large 
the measures which the colored people had fallen upon 
to excite the negro slaves to rise into rebellion. (g) Here 
we have a satisfactory proof of the ill effects of partial 
emancipation in a slave holding country. Those very 
colored men who were first favored with a grant of their 
liberty were those who stirred up the slaves to revolt. 
The same thing happened in Jamaica, where the Ma- 
roons attempted to create a general revolt of the slaves, 
who had, says Edwards, "been accustomed, for the pre- 
ceding seven years, to hear of nothing but Mr. Wilber- 
force, and his efforts to serve them in Great Britain. 
The negroes on every plantation in the West Indies were 
taught to believe that their masters were generally con- 
sidered, in the mother country, as a set of odious and 
abominable miscreants, whom it was laudable to mas- 
sacre. (A) 



(e) " Perish the colonies," said Robespierre, " rather than 
sacrifice one iota of our principles." 

(/) 4 Edwards's "West Indies, preface, xv, 

[,§•) Same, page 53. 

{h) 1 Edwards, appendix, p. 371. 



Let us look the danger that threatens us in the face, 
Let us contemplate a revolt in its progress and conse- 
quences. " Such a picture of human misery ; such a 
scene of woe presents itself, as no other country, no for- 
mer age, has exhibited. Upwards of one hundred thou- 
sand savage people avail themselves of the silence and 
obscurity of the night, and fall on the peaceful and un- 
suspicious planters, like so many famished tygers, thirst- 
ing for human blood. Revolt, conflagration, and massa- 
cre, every where mark their progress; and death in all 
its horrors, or cruelties and outrages, compared to which 
immediate death is mercy, await alike the old and the 
young, the matron, the virgin, and the helpless infant. 
The rage of fire consumes what the sword is unable to 
destroy ; and, in a few dismal hours, the most fertile and 
beautiful plains in the world are converted into one vast 
field of carnage ; a wilderness of desolation."(*) 

Such is the " glorious cause, 5 * the " cause of unre- 
deemed and un regenerated human beings," spoken of 
by an orator of the last session; whose fault it does not 
seem to have been, that his speech has neither produced 
assassination nor insurrection.-' Such, it seems to us, is 
the fate which our philanthropists are preparing for us. 
If we escape it, we shall owe our escape to our strength, 
foresig-ht, and vigilance, and not to the good will of our 
philanthropists. 

Upon this great question, which involves the construc- 
tion of the constitution, and of a treaty with a foreign 
power, we have memorials laid before us. Town-meet- 
ings instruct us in our duty, and tell us their construction 
of the constitution and the treaty. This is ridiculous 
enough. But what is entitled to more serious attention, 
is the declaration of the Governor of New York, that the 
restriction should be imposed on Missouri, " whatever 
may be the consequences." It seems that this eminent po- 
litician would prefer civil war, servile war, or the sever- 
ance of the Union, to not imposing a restriction that will 
exclude the planters of the south from Missouri. Such, 
a declaration, from sach a man, is alai'ming. The con- 
solidation of the Union was the great object of the states- 
men who gave us the constitution. It was the first wish 
of their hearts. They desired to establish justice, and 
ensure domestic tranquility ; but they never thought of 
emancipation of slaves as the means. They desired to 
establish justice; your plan violates justice, by depriving 
the people of their property without compensation. They 
desired to ensure domestic tranquility ; you destroy it. 
No necessary concession was too great for them to make. 

[i) 4 Edwards's West Indies, p. 68, 69. 



35 

to secure the Union. They even granted to Delaware 
an equal vote with Pennsylvania, in the Senate. But, to 
the politicians of the present day, Union seems of little 
importance : for the proposed restriction must be impos- 
ed on Missouri, " whatever may be the consequences." 
I will offer the sentiments of that assembly of Virginia 
who deputed members to the federal convention, as ap- 
plicable to the present discussion, and worthy of adoption. 
" The crisis,'* say they, " is arrived, at which the good 
people of America are to decide the solemn question, 
whether they will, by wise and magnanimous efforts, 
reap the just fruits of that independence which they 
have so gloriously acquired, and of that Union which 
they have cemented with so much of their common blood, 
or whether, by giving way to unmanly jealousies and 
prejudices, or to pariial and transitory interests, they 
will renounce the auspicious blessings prepared for them 
by the Revolution. The same noble and extended po- 
licy, and the same fraternal and affectionate sentiments 
which originally determined the citizens of this common- 
wealth to unite with their brethren of the other states 
in establishing a federal government, cannot but be felt 
with equal force now, as motives to lay aside every infe- 
rior consideration, and to concur in such further con- 
cessions and provisions as may be necessary to secure 
the great objects for which that government was insti- 
tuted, and to render the United States as happy in peace 
as they have been glorious in war." 

Such having been the sentiments of the generation 
who preceded us, shall we now part, about a question, 
whether blacks who are slaves on the east side of the 
Mississippi may or may not be removed to the west side 
of that river ? Shall our mutual forbearance and bro- 
therly affection cease ? Shall we become, as brothers ir- 
ritated sometimes do become, the worst of foes ? Be- 
fore such an event is produced, before our friendship 
falls, like Lucifer, to rise no more, let us remember past 
events, and contemplate our future prospects. Shall the 
Union be destroyed, and the future fame, power, and 
happiness of the nation lost ? May heaven avert a ca- 
lamity, the consequences of which would be to blast the 
fairest hopes of mankind. 

But why should we ask of heaven to avert a calamity 
which we may avert ourselves ? Are there none here 
who would wish to have it recorded that they are the 
men who saved the Union ; that to them is due the fu- 
ture glory of the nation, and the benefits which she shall 
confer on the world ? Now is the moment for the Decii 
of the north to signalize themselves ; to laugh the pre- 



n 



36 



sumption of town-meetings to scorn. Yes; even to sa- 
crifice their own inclinations, and their own opinions, on 
the altar of their country. 

If I am asked why we do not sacrifice our inclinations 
and opinions, I answer, we conceive that the proposed 
measure violates the constitution. It is not pretended 
by any one that it would violate the constitution to omit 
this restriction. We conceive that the proposed measure 
threatens oar safety, at a period not remote. No one 
can reasonably allege that to omit the restriction would 
endanger the safety of the powerful people of the north. 

I will not apologize for having taken up some of your 
time. I have raised my feeble voice for the preservation 
of the Union, and all its happy and glorious results ; for 
the rights of the states; for the rights of the people; for 
justice, humanity, and domestic tranquility ; to preserve 
our citizens from massacre, our wives and daughters 
from violation ; and our children from being impaled by 
the most inhuman of savages. (k\ Whatever may be the 
result, I have done my duty. 

{k) 4 Edwards's West Indies, p. 75. " Their standard was 
the body of a white infant, which they had recently impaled on 
a stake." P. 79. " All the white, and even the mulatto chil- 
dren, whose fathers had not joined in the revolt, were murr 
dered," 



t? 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



